Forum:The big MoS/MoR/Rating forum

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
Forums - The big MoS/MoR/Rating forum


Just thought putting this all in the one forum might make it easier to read, and someone might actually bother reading it. If you have other realated issues you want to bring up, please place them in a separate heading under the appropriate section. NovaHawk 23:17, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Customs[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was implemented

Manual of Requirements

Every article must have an image of the custom depicted. A custom without an image is not a custom. - A lot of customs recently have involved a "custom" set, where the images are solely official minifigures. Allow this, or change the wording such that it must read that at least one image must be a custom?

(Same point as above) - This reads so that an image of the set must exist, yet again, many custom "sets" have had images which are only custom minifigures. Keep wording, or allow set page to have images only of the minifigures?

Any custom themes must have at least two valid set articles contained within it, and these sets linked to. - Keep this, or change to "set and/or minifigure articles"?

  • Change. NovaHawk 23:17, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Change. User:Darth henry/Sig 3 23:21, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't change - What's wrong with having standalone custom minifigure pages? I make some sometimes, but Berrybrick has made tons. I'd hate to see those deleted because they don't appear in sets. -User:King of Nynrah/sig1 23:26, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
    • ? I may have worded that badly- it means that having two custom minifigure images on a theme page would mean that a theme page is valid- how it reads now is that you need two images that must be of custom sets NovaHawk 23:30, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Change. User:1999bug/sig1 23:52, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Per above. (Just for a change (:D)). User:Captain Jag/sig1 02:43, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Change Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 04:03, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • per kon. --User:CzechMate/czech 04:29, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Read NBS' response, please. Berrybrick 10:06, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Change to custom sets and/or custom minifigure articles, then it's fine. ;) Berrybrick 10:06, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, definitely. The "custom" is so basic I wouldn't have even thought otherwise, but it's definitely good to have there. NovaHawk 11:11, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Change. βᵒᵇ βʳᶦᶜᵏˢ™ Ʈᵃᶫᵏ · βᶫᵒᵍ


Titles[edit source]

I can't remember if we discussed this, please disregard if we have. Say someone made a custom minifigure at Custom:Superman, but someone else wants to create a custom Superman minifigure. What would happen?

  • I would say that if this was a case the second user could make a page at Custom:Superman/<second user's username>, and would have the right to move the original page to Custom:Superman/<first user's username>, then make Custom:Superman a disambiguation page, which lists both user's creations. NovaHawk 07:03, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • That's what I've done in the past, when I've wanted to bother renaming pages. :P Redirects give me trouble. Berrybrick 10:07, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • That's what we've been doing before, to my recollection. -User:King of Nynrah/sig1 10:20, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • I would put my name beside it in parentheses like they do on some custom wikis.. User:1999bug/sig1 23:17, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Fan "Definitions"[edit source]

Eg, Juniorization. Would it be ok to have things like this is the customs space? It definitely doesn't belong in the mainspace. If so, maybe we should make a "Category:Fan-based content" category, and things in that are excluded from the customnoimage rule? NovaHawk 00:54, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't want a page on them at all. I find most of them either very immature (the ones that are supposed to be funny, like BURP), not very useful, or a bad excuse to criticize a theme (I'm thinking of juniorization there, at least in modern sets). There are a few like AFOL that I don't mind, but even if it really is fan content, it isn't a custom. Berrybrick 19:31, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Amendment[edit source]

After this I think that we should add a new line to the MOR, something like this: "If you wish to create a theme/set/minifigure/etc. based on another user, you must have their permission first." And then maybe a sub-bullet to point out that some users say on their profile that they would be okay with someone going ahead without asking (which I believe some do). We don't usually have problems with this, since when someone objects to being used, the creator is usually respectful enough to withdraw/change it, but...uh...someone hasn't been, even with that blog. Berrybrick 23:39, September 18, 2013 (UTC) I second the motion. 

--User:ErkelonJay/sig1 16:37, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Reviews[edit source]

BP:RFD (reviews for deletion)[edit source]

Have a system where reviews can be nominated for deletion if they are sub-standard (examples include reviews which are very short, contain only star ratings, or are full of bad spelling/grammar)? NovaHawk 01:18, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Support
Berrybrick 19:31, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

IP's (reviews and customs)[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was disallow IP reviews

Allow IP reviews?

  • Disallow- The current system works off using your username in the title, and IP addresses can change. Also, the system is set up such that the "submit review" button grabs your username (when it works... still can't see why it won't work in Firefox), and uses it for the review. If you're an IP, your username is "null" (the button was also coded such that if the username was null, there wouldn't be a submit button, but that's broken lately as well). This means that all IP's will be redirected to Review:Reviewname/null, and can be told that they've made a review, when it may have been made by another IP. Also, I haven't seen one good IP review yet- they're at best a couple of sentences long, and usually contain poor spelling/grammar, and need to be deleted because they're sub-standard. NovaHawk 23:17, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Per NHL. User:Cligra/Sig
  • Disallow- Disallowing this will encourage them to make an account. User:Darth henry/Sig 3 23:20, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah, that was my other point I forgot- it's not as if it's hard to make an account :) NovaHawk 23:21, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow, per all others. -User:King of Nynrah/sig1 23:28, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow, per everyone above. User:1999bug/sig1 23:54, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow. User:Captain Jag/sig1 02:43, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • ^^ --User:CzechMate/czech 04:30, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow, but we will have to explain why not. Then the ones who can understand it might be a descent review writer. Berrybrick 10:11, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was disallow IP customs

Allow IP customs?

  • Neutral (I don't pay enough attention to the customs side to have an opinion) <- (not completely true). Many "bad" IP customs are flagged with customNoImage or customThemeLessThan2, so you don't really need to worry about that. The problem is that you can't really identify a creator if they're just an IP address, and again, and if they can upload an image to the site and write an article, why can't they make an accout? So still neutral. NovaHawk 23:17, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow- Disallowing this will encourage them to make an account. User:Darth henry/Sig 3 23:20, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
    • I completely disagree. Many IPs just don't want to (or can't!) make an account, so there's no reason to do that. :/ User:Cligra/Sig
  • No reason to not allow it. A lot of the customs from IPs are bad quality and have to be deleted, but that doesn't mean there can't be good ones. User:Cligra/Sig
  • Disallow - call me skeptical but I've never seen a decent IP-created customs page. -User:King of Nynrah/sig1 23:28, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow, per Cligra. I've switched to neutral due to the fact that contributors cannot upload images, resulting in a CustomNoImage flag. User:1999bug/sig1 23:55, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral This is a CJC-NHL-(oops-sorry,-NBS)-anyone-else-who-uses-it style message to say that I've seen this. User:Captain Jag/sig1 02:43, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow, they usually just make one like "custom:lloyd lego ninjago" andthings like that, and per KoN (for the second time). --User:CzechMate/czech 04:29, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral To be fair, the ones with images are still as good as half the garbage we have here. I don't see a reason not to, really. The only thing that really bugs me is how they always have a deletion template, and recreate the page again a few hours later. Berrybrick 10:14, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Per NHL βᵒᵇ βʳᶦᶜᵏˢ™ Ʈᵃᶫᵏ · βᶫᵒᵍ
  • Neutral Per some above. Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 02:11, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • If what 1999bug says is true, then oppose- if they can't upload images, they can't make valid customs articles, so there's no point in allowing them NovaHawk 02:53, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow, Per NHL, and CP and it'll encourage them to make an account. User:LSCStealthNinja/RealSig
  • Disallow It seems easier to just make an account. :S User:Mr. Minifigure/sig 19:44, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow Per others, should be one of those "perks" for joining (Chat, Reviews, and this). Definitely will make it easier to filter out good/bad pages as well. -User:Nerfblasterpro/sig1 15:04, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
  • Disallow, due to the technical restrictions on IPs uploading images. User:Ajraddatz/sig 13:46, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


Mainspace[edit source]

Content in Description[edit source]

Change description to images of minifigure usch as with/out cape, backwards etc, It'd be much. much better than words of it, as pictures tell 1000 words, thus being good for FA :P --User:CzechMate/czech 04:53, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

  • I would support if we had a huge team of photographers who can produce high-quality images with white backgrounds and who also own a massive variety of minifigures, but we don't, so oppose. NovaHawk 07:03, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless, we allow for two types of description sections- one with text OR one with a complete set of good quality front, side and back shots with any additional required shots (cape off/helmet off, etc). NovaHawk 07:06, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
      • I could get all my minifigures and take these detailed photo's if you like? Clone gunner commander jedi talk
        • But do you have thousands of minifigures? User:Cligra/Sig
          • No but I could take great pics of the minifigures I have, that would be a start.Clone gunner commander jedi talk
            • Per Clone, I guess it depends how descent the picture is and possibly have a process with the Admins to judge if the picture is deemed appropriate for it. -User:Power Jim/sigcode 08:59, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
              • I don't know about admins, but I do think that if this was to happen, a group (either a new one or maybe the QCG?) should do a quick check that all angles are covered, and that the quality of the images are satisfactory. I don't think we want to go and have any pre-existing description sections completely removed and then replaced with sub-standard images. The only thing I have against using images only is that those who have images turned off on their browsers for whatever reason or users that have sight impairments will no longer be able to get an idea as to what the figure looks like, but I guess this is only a very small percentage of our potential audience (if any) NovaHawk 09:09, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think that it would be a great idea. I can help with it. Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 02:14, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • I've seen a few wikis (okay, maybe two) which have a gallery subpage, rather than having every single image of something making an image wall. As much as I dislike subpages, what do you think about doing this minifigure image thing on one? Berrybrick 00:06, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • JSYK, this is an incredibly bad idea. LEGO has produced thousands of minifigures, and it would be absolutely impossible to find good pictures of the front and back of all of them. Not even Brickset has managed this, which should give off a hint that it's not exactly easy. Sure, lots of minifigures, especially recent ones, have hundreds of readily-available images, but what about the DUPLO figures of Little Forest Friends, Fabuland Figures, or almost every City minifigure ever made? To put it simply, this cannot be done. We want every article to eventually be at C2 level of higher, but making this a rule would mean that it would be impossible for hundreds of minifigures to attain the requirements necessary for C2. This wouldn't be a bad idea if it was possible to do. However, it really isn't. User:Cligra/Sig
    • Per Cligra. ~ CJC 19:46, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

LEGOLAND/Miniland[edit source]

Do we actually have a MoS for these pages? If so I need it :p - Zer0

Since I was the only person who ever done them, no. It was one of those things I started that everyone just sort of ignores... ~ CJC 17:37, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Well that's OK as I just copy and past your articles and change the place names and dates. - Zer010
I don't think we have one for video games either. Berrybrick 18:43, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, we definitely need to figure these out. Also real-world people NovaHawk 23:13, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
I only bring this up as non of my LEGOland pages are getting rated as there's no official MoS - Zero

Ordering[edit source]

Minor point- the placement of the "notes" and "sources/references" sections are not specified in the MoS for minifigure articles- where should they go? Also, "sources/references" are always listed together, but they need separate headings, so which one should go first?

  • Notes above appearances, sources/references below the gallery of variants, references before sources? NovaHawk 23:13, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • I think references should go first. In all honesty though (and I don't mean this offensively), I think most users would not worry or really care about if sources or references comes first. But I do see why you are bringing the issue up. -User:Power Jim/sigcode 11:25, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, no I know it's an extremely minor thing, but everything else is clarified and we may as well have it there for those that do care. NovaHawk 11:57, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was implement

Books

Which format should be used? this? or this?. Personally I think we should use the Ninjago version. User:Darth henry/Sig 16:40, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

  • They look the same to me, except the Ninjago one's a bit more complete. This is my idea for the book MoS:
    • A book infobox
    • A lead section
    • Plot summary
    • Some heading about any content, eg exclusive minifigures, etc. Not sure what to call it
    • Notes
NovaHawk 01:35, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
Per NBS. User:Cligra/Sig

TV Episode/Film MoS

  • Episode infobox
  • Intro section
  • Synopsis
  • List of appearances
    • Appearances grouped, eg minifigures, vehicles, playsets, miscellaneous?
  • Notes
? NovaHawk 01:06, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Co-pack MoS

  • Co-packs are most of the time, just a combination of existing sets. To avoid duplicate information, I was wondering if we should maybe do this?
    • Under the description, use level three subheadings for each set, ie ===name of set===
      • Have a Main article: 7153 Jango Fett's Slave I right under the set (replaced by the name of the set of course)
      • Have a very brief description of the set.
    • If something exists in the co-pack that doesn't exist on its own, have a level 3 subheading, but describe it fully in the section.
    • Repeat for background.
    • Notes, etc as normal
NovaHawk 01:06, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
I like it. Support. User:Cligra/Sig
Great idea. Support User:LSCStealthNinja/RealSig
Okay Berrybrick 00:06, September 4, 2012 (UTC)


App MoS[edit source]

Currently, we don't have an MoS for Apps. My idea would be:

  • Infobox
    • Picture of the App Icon
  • Gameplay
  • List of Characters, Vehicles, Items etc.
  • Notes
  • Screenshots/Gallery

So, that's my idea. User:LSCStealthNinja/RealSig

Support. Yes, with the new apps coming out, it'll be good to have a section in the MoS for it. (But what of a gallery?) Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge
Good point. I'll add it. User:LSCStealthNinja/RealSig
Can't the link go in the infobox? I also think that the list should come before the notes, because those are usually things of interest which aren't covered elsewhere. Berrybrick 00:05, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
Added. Thanks. User:LSCStealthNinja/RealSig
I don't know if I can trust it... AppMoS sounds a lot like ATMOS :P (sounds good, providing we need to format it differently from video games) NovaHawk 05:30, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
Support, sounds good. User:Cligra/Sig

This page[edit source]

I didn't want to start a new forum, but if we're doing separate pages for episodes, should we do a page like Wikipedia does? (For example, this) Berrybrick 19:28, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

  • A table of some sort should be on it, I say. ~ CJC 19:46, September 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • Definitely. When I actually got around to starting up some episode articles, I was going to have a semantic thing going where the summary would be transcluded in from the article. NovaHawk 00:04, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • Per CJC. User:Cligra/Sig

Video game header[edit source]

  • Weirdly, this isn't in the MoS.
    • "For minifigure articles which have been depicted in more than one form (physical, video game, film, etc.), a level three heading should be used to for the non-physical variants, for example "In the Video Games".
  • ? That is what's been most commonly done, however if someone has a better idea for a title, please feel free to suggest. NovaHawk 05:16, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we have 'Video Game Variant' or something? 'In the Video Games' is very ungrammatical. User:UltrasonicNXT/Signature
    • Sounds good to me (or variants for more than one of course) NovaHawk 09:56, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Generic Characters[edit source]

  • I don't think that we have a policy for generic characters at the moment. Should each variation get their own page? We've done that in some instances, but I think that we should combine them all onto a single page. For example, instead of "Zotaxian 1, 2, 3, etc." we'd just have a page for "Zotaxians" (excluding Gypsy Moth and any other named ones which escape me). I know we've shied away from this in the past because of the hundreds of police officers and firemen, but we could divide those up. "Police Officers (Town)", "Police Officers (World City)", and the likes. We also have had some variations in function too recently, so City could be divided up into "Forest Police Officers", "Elite Police Officers", and "Police Officers (City)". Anyway, I just can't imagine why anyone would want to sift through indistinguishable names to find a specific minifigure when they could all be in one place. Berrybrick 22:55, September 21, 2013 (UTC)
Per Berry

, I think. --User:ErkelonJay/sig1 23:22, October 3, 2013 (UTC) Per Berry Stormbringer Empire791 (talk) 02:00, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

I think we should be dividing by theme and minifigure. Accessories, at least to me, don't feel like they are distinguishing features, except in the case of certain characters like Ogel and space stuff like Insectoids and UFO. This would lead itself to something like "Town Police Headset", etc...then we can have variants on one page. That, or we can do minifigures by accessories, and just do it the way Brickset/Bricklink track it,. The main reason to do this would be consistency across encyclopedias, but we'd also make it easier to see the accessories used in each theme. Opinions? - BF2 Talk 23:18, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

  • I think they should be divided into different pages with a "Gallery of Varients" section, and if necessary, descriptions on each variant. --Silence, Doctor (talk) 21:23, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
    • How would you define which minifigure is a variant of what? - BF2 Talk 21:32, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Boba here. User:LFY1547/HalloweenSig 10:05, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
Which one? - BF2 Talk 21:13, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • OK. ~ CJC 14:49, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
    • What's that supposed to mean? - BF2 Talk 21:13, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
      • "Used to express assent, agreement, or acceptance: "OK, I give in"." ~ CJC 21:18, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
        • And it was aimed at the original statement made by Berry, which would be clear if the formatting being used here wasn't all over the place. ~ CJC 21:19, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
          • Makes sense. Berry's system is fine by me. - BF2 Talk 14:38, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Berry. User:Legoboy9373/sig 15:54, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I understand you, Boba. A handheld accessory difference shouldn't constitute a variant, but I think that things attached by the neck should. I don't know about things like feathers and bows though. Does that answer your question, or did I miss the point? Berrybrick 20:33, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
    • Which question? Basically, I agree with you. Helmet plumes can indicate a difference - it's likely that the Dragon Masters with the more ornate helmets (with the side plumes in addition to the front ones) are higher ranked, that the plumes on a pirate hat indicate rank, etc....basically, anything worn, not held (anything worn around the hips, neck, or head). - BF2 Talk 20:38, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, okay, I didn't quite understand. :P I agree with feathers/plumes, but don't think that bows should constitute variants though since they seem to be more like handheld accessories than part of the figure most of the time (I'm looking at Friends). Berrybrick 20:47, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Per Berrybrick Legosuperheroesfan (talk) 21:05, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Per Berry, I guess...it doesn't seem ideal, but I can't think of anything better right now. I do think named 'figs should have their own pages, though. -- Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 01:58, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
    • Without a doubt. If every fig were properly named, even if it was just a generic name, we could do this without an issue, but TLG never makes it easy for anyone tracking the history of their product...just look at Adventurers. - BF2 Talk 01:59, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
  • While I like the reasoning behind Berry's system, I think that it should not be used for any characters who have more specific information on them released by LEGO, kind of like with the latest Castle knights, which each have little blurbs on them. Even if they share the same name, they are, in my opinion, considered unqiue characters in that case, and their pages should be given the opportunities for appropriate expansion, even if it isn't always carried out. If it's something like CITY, though, where LEGO does not put effort in any characterization, then I think one page is fine. BrickfilmNut (talk) 02:15, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And if there are comics and then the same figure appears in a set (Res-Q, Extreme Team, etc...), do should we keep those as separate names or assume that the minifigure is of that character? - BF2 Talk 14:34, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
      • I guess it kind of varies. There would have to be a decent amount of evidence that the one in the comic is the one in a set, such as consistent portrayal in both the comics and sets. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:54, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

It seems like everybody who is likely to comment has already done so and there hasn't been much dissent. The majority appear to like Berrybrick's way of doing things. To summarize:

  • Named figures get their own page with variants, as they're named - obviously they're not the same as unnamed figures
  • Unnamed figures are considered variants of each other

For the second, how should we organize it (this is most relevant for city - for example, in themes like Hospital, you have various figures, and so on) - BF2 Talk 14:52, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

The best way I can think of is by occupation, like "Paramedic" and "Doctor". In cases (like police and fire) where there would be too many firefighters (or whatever) to put on one page, then we could also divide them up by theme or subtheme: Firefighter (World City), Firefighter (Classic), Firefighter (Forest), etc. Berrybrick 14:08, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
I think everything should be divided by theme, at least, then we can group stuff on the same page. - BF2 Talk 19:38, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

Can we make this "law" now? I've been holding off a lot of editing for this. - BF2 Talk 15:56, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

I guess so. Berrybrick 23:04, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.brickimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forum:The_big_MoS/MoR/Rating_forum&oldid=872158"